4.6 Article

Long-Term Persistence and Leaching of Escherichia coli in Temperate Maritime Soils

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 76, 期 5, 页码 1449-1455

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02335-09

关键词

-

资金

  1. Irish Research Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (IRCSET)
  2. Tea-gasc, Johnstown Castle

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enteropathogen contamination of groundwater, including potable water sources, is a global concern. The spreading on land of animal slurries and manures, which can contain a broad range of pathogenic microorganisms, is considered a major contributor to this contamination. Some of the pathogenic microorganisms applied to soil have been observed to leach through the soil into groundwater, which poses a risk to public health. There is a critical need, therefore, for characterization of pathogen movement through the vadose zone for assessment of the risk to groundwater quality due to agricultural activities. A lysimeter experiment was performed to investigate the effect of soil type and condition on the fate and transport of potential bacterial pathogens, using Escherichia coli as a marker, in four Irish soils (n = 9). Cattle slurry (34 tonnes per ha) was spread on intact soil monoliths (depth, 1 m; diameter, 0.6 m) in the spring and summer. No effect of treatment or the initial soil moisture on the E. coli that leached from the soil was observed. Leaching of E. coli was observed predominantly from one soil type (average, 1.11 +/- 0.77 CFU ml(-1)), a poorly drained Luvic Stagnosol, under natural rainfall conditions, and preferential flow was an important transport mechanism. E. coli was found to have persisted in control soils for more than 9 years, indicating that autochthonous E. coli populations are capable of becoming naturalized in the low-temperature environments of temperate maritime soils and that they can move through soil. This may compromise the use of E. coli as an indicator of fecal pollution of waters in these regions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据